  |
|
Philosophy of Science and Bioethics My research program consists of cross-disciplinary studies at the boundary between science and philosophy, attempting to articulate what doing science entails with the goal of informing science policy decisions and advancing science education and public understanding of science. The philosophical approach that I use involves exploring the assumptions and challenges implicit in practice. Oxford University Press recently (2009) published my new book Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion meet Objectivity and Logic. Everyday Practice begins with the premise that although scientific facts can be so complicated that only specialists in a field will fully appreciate the details, the nature of everyday practice that gives rise to these facts should be understandable by everyone interested in science. My book describes how scientists bring their own interests and passions to their work, illustrates the dynamics between researchers and the research community, and emphasizes a contextual understanding of science in place of the linear model found in textbooks with its singular focus on "scientific method." Everyday Practice of Science also introduces readers to issues about science and society. Practice requires value judgments: What should be done? Who should do it? Who should pay for it? How much? Balancing scientific opportunities with societal needs depends on appreciating both the promises and the ambiguities of science. Understanding practice informs discussions about how to manage research integrity, conflict of interest, and the challenge of modern genetics to human research ethics. Society cannot have the benefits of research without the risks. Finally, the last chapter contrasts the practices of science and religion as reflective of two different types of faith and describes a holistic framework within which they dynamically interact. Future work will be aimed at a project called "Human Dignity and Bioethics." The term “human dignity” increasingly is proposed as a key principle underlying bioethical decision making. Yet the meaning of the term remains highly controversial. Questions about the meaning of human dignity that I would like to investigate: 1) What assumptions lead to an understanding of human dignity in different terms of human genetics (evolution), cognitive function, or spiritual function (soul)? 2) How do assumptions about the relationship between phenomenal consciousness and neurological structure/function influence our understanding of human dignity? 3) How do human enhancements influence our understanding of human dignity? Free-living IVF embryos and artificial life supported-dead bodies, although rarely discussed as such, can be understood as engineered human enhancements.
|
|
|
|
Review
by Alice Kim at Science and Consciousness Blog Review by John Kwok at Amazon.Com Lab
Bench Ethics (podcast): Science Progress hosts interview
between Jonathan Moreno and Fred Grinnell Review
by Chris Lee at ArsTechnica Blog
|
|
Oxford University Press Blog (2009): Science and Conflict of Interest Oxford University Press Blog (2009): How to Support Graduate Education in the Sciences Oxford University Press Blog (2009): Redefining Death -- Again
|
Grinnell,
F. (2009) Intelligible Design or Intelligent Design? It’s
a Matter of Faith. Chronicle of Higher Education. 55(18): B5
|
|
Grinnell, F. (1983) Studies on intersubjectivity: A comparison of Martin Buber and Alfred Schutz. Human Studies 6: 185-195. Grinnell, F. (1986) Complementarity: An approach to understanding the relationship between science and religion. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 29: 292-301. Grinnell, F. (1990) The endings of clinical research protocols: Understanding the difference between therapy and research. IRB. 12: 1-4 Grinnell,
F. (2000) The practice of science at the edge of knowledge. Chronicle
of Higher Education. 46(29):B11-12 Grinnell, F.
(2002) Doing science. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 15: 204-210.
|
